gre writing issue sample writing 42
- Students should always question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Stating that students should always question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively, the speaker asserts that skepticism is the best means for any student to be truly enlightened. In some sense, it is true that every progress in knowledge either of an individual or of a society as a whole begins by critical thinking and efforts to overcome the limitations of the existing body of knowledge. In my perspective, however, excessive praise for critical approach might make us lose sights on its dark aspects—dangers of either neglecting even valuable lessons from the existing system of knowledge or inadequately controlled cynicism among dogmatic spirits.
Of course, few would disagree that true enlightenment depends greatly on incredulous approaches established in our modern world. In the recent history of development in science, it was and is skepticism that ensures our progress in knowledge. Rather than passively accepting certain intellectual authorities, modern scientists raised all types of questions and doubts on what had been previously taken for granted as well as what seemed plausible by and of itself; for example, Gallileo cast doubts on the inherited argument of the Sun’s movement; Newton and Einstein tried to redress their predecessor’s valid argument in another context. Through the skeptical approaches of their own versions, they contributed to widening and deepening the system of scientific knowledge.
Then, is skepticism always a virtue for intellectual progress? At this point, we need to be prudent.
Should students always doubt what they are taught instead of accepting it in a humble attitude? In some sense, it is undeniable that true learning begins by adequate skepticisms, critical revisions, and creative reinterpretations. However, in my view, there are many ways and reasons in or for which excessive emphasis on skeptical approach works counterproductively to true intellectual pursuits.
Of course, few would disagree that true intellectual progress requires thoughtful challenges on the existing body of knowledge. In the realm of modern science where the ultimate purpose of any exploration is to formulate more accurate and novel principles, it is almost axiomatic that any meaningful intellectual activity begins from rejections of the established system of knowledge. In fact, laboratories or classrooms of a university can never be a place for knowledge unless there is any skeptical approach; Newton could be who he is as we know him today because he was a critical mind, and without an exception, all significant modern scientists just like Newton have been able to coin their respective new ideas into the world because they value skepticism as a primary method.
Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that humble respect for the existing knowledge is a tool used only by naïve, incompetent learners. When it comes to initial acquisition of basic tools for achieving more advanced, sophisticated, and even totally innovative ideas, learning is a matter of not so much strict challenges as systematic acceptance of gems of the existing knowledge. What is the merit of skepticism for an elementary school kid to hone his or her basic skills in arithmetic? In this case, from my opinion, emphasis on critical approach is not a prerequisite but a luxury, which is unnecessary and ill-oriented.
Meanwhile, I cannot agree with the idea of the speaker in that, at times, our true intellectual experience comes from humble respect for the past achievements instead of nitpicking their trivial errors or limitations. From the standpoints of modern science, even the principles of Einstein could be faulted for many reasons; in the face of this situation, then, which will be the best way to appreciate the works of our predecessors? No matter how imperfect they might be because of their minor foibles or the limited resources of their times, I believe, any wise student would not spurn them; to me, it is disheartening for many arrogant scholars feel complacency over them. Instead, true intellectual inspiration sometimes comes from sympathetic readings on those flawed but inspiring contributions.
The speaker contends that students should be skeptical in their studies, and should not accept passively whatever they are taught. In my view, although undue skepticism might be counterproductive for a young child's education, I strongly agree with the speaker otherwise. If we were all to accept on blind faith all that we are taught, our society would never progress or evolve.
Skepticism is perhaps most important in the physical sciences. Passive acceptance of prevailing principles quells innovation, invention, and discovery. In fact, the very notion of scientific progress is predicated on rigorous scientific inquiry-in other words, skepticism. And history is replete with examples of students of science who challenged what they had been taught, thereby paving the way for scientific progress. For example, in challenging the notion that the Earth was in a fixed position at the center of the universe, Copernicus paved the way for the corroborating observations of Galileo a century later, and ultimately for Newton's principles of gravity upon which all modern science is based. The staggering cumulative impact of Copernicus' rejection of what he had been taught is proof enough of the value of skepticism.
The value of skepticism is not limited to the physical sciences, of course. In the fields of sociology and political science, students must think critically about the assumptions underlying the status quo; otherwise, oppression, tyranny and prejudice go unchecked. Similarly, while students of the law must learn to appreciate timeless legal doctrines and principles, they must continually question the fairness and relevance of current laws. Otherwise, our laws would not evolve to reflect changing societal values and to address new legal issues arising from our ever-evolving technologies.
Even in the arts, students must challenge established styles and forms rather than learn to imitate them; otherwise, no genuinely new art would ever emerge. Bee-bop musicians such as Charlie Parker demonstrated through their wildly innovative harmonies and melodies their skepticism about established rules for harmony and melody. In the area of dance Bauanchine showed by way of his improvisational techniques his skepticism about established rules for choreography. And Germany's Bauhaus School of Architecture, to which modern architecture owes its existence, was rooted in skepticism about the proper objective, and resulting design, of public buildings.
Admittedly, undue skepticism might be counterproductive in educating young children. I am not an expert in developmental psychology; yet observation and common sense informs me that youngsters must first develop a foundation of experiential knowledge before they can begin to think critically about what they are learning. Even so, in my view no student, no matter how young, should be discouraged from asking "Why?" and "Why not?"
To sum up, skepticism is the very stuff that progress is made of, whether it be in science, sociology, politics, the law, or the arts. Therefore, skepticism should be encouraged at all but the most basic levels of education.